ArticleBMC genomics2021
Benchmarking different approaches for Norovirus genome assembly in metagenome samples.
Article in BMC genomics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Benchmarking genome assemblers for four bacterial models based on contiguity, correctness, and completeness.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Enhancing Clinical Utility: Utilization of International Standards and Guidelines for Metagenomic Sequencing in Infectious Disease Diagnosis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Complex norovirus transmission dynamics at hospital wards revealed by deep sequencing.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2023Article
- Benchmarking State-of-the-Art Approaches for Norovirus Genome Assembly in Metagenome Sample.Biology · 2023Article
- Benchmarking Bioinformatic Tools for Amplicon-Based Sequencing of Norovirus.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2023Article
- Recombinant Noroviruses Circulating in Spain from 2016 to 2020 and Proposal of Two Novel Genotypes within Genogroup I.Microbiology spectrum · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGenome assembly of viruses with high mutation rates, such as Norovirus and other RNA viruses, or from metagenome samples, poses a challenge for the scientific community due to the coexistence of several viral quasispecies and strains. Furthermore, there is no standard method for obtaining whole-genome sequences in non-related patients. After polyA RNA isolation and sequencing in eight patients with acute gastroenteritis, we evaluated two de Bruijn graph assemblers (SPAdes and MEGAHIT), combined with four different and common pre-assembly strategies, and compared those yielding whole genome Norovirus contigs.
resultsReference-genome guided strategies with both host and target virus did not present any advantages compared to the assembly of non-filtered data in the case of SPAdes, and in the case of MEGAHIT, only host genome filtering presented improvements. MEGAHIT performed better than SPAdes in most samples, reaching complete genome sequences in most of them for all the strategies employed. Read binning with CD-HIT improved assembly when paired with different analysis strategies, and more notably in the case of SPAdes.
conclusionsNot all metagenome assemblies are equal and the choice in the workflow depends on the species studied and the prior steps to analysis. We may need different approaches even for samples treated equally due to the presence of high intra host variability. We tested and compared different workflows for the accurate assembly of Norovirus genomes and established their assembly capacities for this purpose.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.